High Court To Review Case on Immunity Defense

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed last week to review an important
procedural case affecting the ability of government officials,
including school administrators, to raise a defense of immunity in
civil rights lawsuits.

The high court agreed to decide whether officials facing such
lawsuits in state courts have the right to immediately appeal a judge's
decision denying them official immunity.

The issue arises fairly often for school administrators and other
government officials sued under the federal Civil Rights Act of 1871, a
Reconstruction-era law that is frequently the basis for suits alleging
that government officials have deprived someone of a constitutional
right.The law is better known for its place in the federal code,
Section 1983.

One of the first defenses officials usually raise is that they are
immune from being sued because their actions were taken in good faith.
When a judge grants such immunity, the official avoids the burden of a
trial and a potential finding of liability.

Officials sued under Section 1983 in federal courts have the right
to immediately appeal an adverse immunity decision.

But state courts are divided on whether immunity rulings can be
appealed right away. Several states allow such appeals, but some leave
the decision up to a trial judge. Others bar such appeals until after a
final judgment in the lawsuit is rendered.

The high court on Oct. 21 agreed to use a case from Idaho to resolve
the issue.

Johnson v. Fankell (Case No. 96-292) involves a civil
rights suit brought by an employee fired from her job with the Idaho
State Liquor Dispensary. Four officials of the state agency who are
defendants in the suit raised an immunity defense that was rejected by
a state trial court. The defendants sought to appeal the denial of
immunity, but the Idaho Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal
because it was not based on a final judgment.

A friend-of-the-court brief filed by 32 states argues that immunity
from lawsuits is of little value for officials if they cannot
immediately appeal potentially erroneous rulings denying them immunity.
"Qualified immunity is critical to the thousands of [government
officials] sued each year in state court as a protection against the
depletion of resources and ... the burdens of standing trial," the
brief says.

The high court will hear arguments in the case next year, with a
ruling expected by next July.

Title IX Case

Separately last week, the court refused to upset a federal appeals
court ruling that rejected the use of Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972 for employment-discrimination cases against schools
and colleges.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled last year that
the main federal job-discrimination law, Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, provides the "exclusive remedy" for employment-related
sex-discrimination suits against educational institutions.

The appeals court said Congress did not intend Title IX, which
prohibits sex discrimination in schools receiving federal funds, "to
offer a bypass of the remedial process of Title VII."

The ruling came in the case of Joan M. Lakoski, a professor at the
University of Texas Medical Branch-Galveston, who alleged that her
denial of tenure was based on sex discrimination.

The high court refused without comment to hear the professor's
appeal in Lakoski v. University of Texas (No.
95-1439).

The justices' refusal to review the decision was surprising because
they had asked the Clinton administration for its views, and the
administration said the appeals court ruling was wrong.

"Congress did not intend Title VII to preclude
employment-discrimination claims under Title IX," the Justice
Department argued in its brief.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.